3749 search results for query *

Summary: 770 F. Supp. 2d 728 (2011) SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Plaintiff, v. Jonathan S. BERCK Individually and as Trustee of the Daniel Berman Insurance Trust, Dated April 25, 2007, and Steven Lockwood, Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION On July 8, 2009, plaintiff Sun Life Assurance Company ("Sun Life" or "plaintiff") filed the present action against defendant Jonathan S. Berck ("Berck"), trustee of the Daniel Berman Insurance Trust (the "Berman Trust"). (D.I. 1) Plaintiff alleges in its second more.

Summary: 674 F. Supp. 2d 569 (2009) CENTER CAPITAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. JR LEAR 60-099, LLC; J.B. Hunt, LLC; Pinnacle Air, LLC; Jet Ride, Inc.; Robert B. Thornton; and Bill W. Schwyhart, Defendant. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Center Capital Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Robert B. Thornton and Bill W. Schwyhart. A.) Defendants Robert B. Thornton, and Bill W. Schwyhart executed personal guarantees (the "Personal Guarantees") on payment of the purchase more.

Summary: 308 B.R. 697 (2004) In re M GROUP, INC., Debtor. FACTS On May 11, 2000 (the "Petition Date"), M Group, Inc. and its related entities ("the Debtors") each filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. That section sets forth the elements of an avoidable preference as "any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property" (1) to or for the benefit of a creditor; (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made; (3) made more.

Summary: (2008) SRI INTERNATIONAL INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. INTERNET SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Georgia corporation, Symantec Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and Internet Security Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. United States District Court, D. Delaware. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff SRI International, Inc. ("SRI") brought suit against defendants Symantec Corporation ("Symantec") and Internet Security Systems, Inc.[1] ("ISS") charging infringement of four patents: more.

Summary: 429 F. Supp. Richard R. Weir, Jr., Esquire and Daniel W. Scialpi, Esquire of the Law Offices of Richard R. Weir, Jr., P.A., Wilmington, DE, Of Counsel: Stuart M. Kreindler, Esquire, *715 Jeffrey A. Regner, Esquire, John Anthony Wolf, Esquire, James E. Edwards, Esquire, Anthony F. Vittoria, Esquire, and Michael A. Schollaert, Esquire of Ober Kaler Grimes & Shriver, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant. Pending before the Court is ALSTOM Power Inc.'s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (D.I.91). Later, more.

Summary: 400 F. Supp. This action was brought by Corning Incorporated and Artificial Sensing Instruments *656 ASI AG (collectively "Corning") against SRU Biosystems, LLC, SRU Biosystems, Inc. and SRU Biosystems Holdings, LLC (collectively, "SRU") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,815,843 (the "'843 patent"). Corning contends that SRU directly infringed and induced infringement of the '843 patent. SRU denies infringement and has filed counter-claims for declaratory judgment that the '843 patent is more.

Summary: 77 F. Supp. The stock which is sought to be cancelled was issued by Valspar to Campbell pursuant to a purported option included in an employment agreement dated December 1, 1942. The option appears to have been exercised on December 30, 1946 and the stock then issued for the consideration of $1.00 per share, whereas the market value of such stock at the time was $11.125 per share. While the exercise of the option and the issuance of the shares was had pursuant to the terms of the employment more.

Summary: 632 F. Supp. In Nemours' motion to disqualify, filed on October 4, 1985, Nemours requests the disqualification of the entire firm of Biggs & Battaglia ("Biggs"), Pierce's local Wilmington counsel, from further representation of their client. Bradley also reviewed documents for Berg's client, Furlow, which included documents produced by Nemours, the party moving for the disqualification of Biggs in this case. Richardson v. Hamilton Int'l Corp., 469 F.2d 1382, 1385 (3d Cir.1972), cert. Rule 1.9, more.

Summary: 200 B.R. 101 (1996) In re GRAND UNION COMPANY, Debtor. Debtor Grand Union Company ("GU") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Grand Union Capital Corporation ("GUCC"), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Grand Union Holdings Corporation ("GUHC"). On November 28, 1995, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the Bankruptcy Court's September 19, 1995 order awarding professional fees and expenses in the GU bankruptcy proceeding (the "fee order"). In an Order dated April 18, 1996, the court more.

Summary: 743 F. Supp. 742 F. Supp. 1983); Fisher v. Samuels, 691 F. Supp. Reargument should not be granted where the matters advanced for reargument would not "reasonably have altered the result [previously] reached by the court...." Crane Co. v. Harsco Corp., 511 F. Supp. Business Machines Corp., 79 F.R.D. 412, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp.

Summary: 728 F. Supp. See Bowater North America Corp. v. Murray Machinery, Inc., 773 F.2d 71, 76-77 (6th Cir.1985) (citing cases); Rosso v. Foodsales, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 274, 276 (E.D. Pa.1980) (citing cases); Read v. Baker, 438 F. Supp. 732, 735 (D.Del.1977); see also Pugh v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 1306, 1307 (E.D.Pa.1986); Morris v. Gaspero, 522 F. Supp. 556, 557 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd, 725 F.2d 667 (3rd Cir.1983); John Ashe Associates, Inc. v. Envirogenics Co., 425 F. Supp. See more.

Summary: 487 F. Supp. *464 Colm F. Connolly, United States Attorney and Shannon Thee Hanson, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Wilmington, DE, for Plaintiff. The officers recovered from the master bedroom: (a) From under the bed, a plate with crack cocaine (D.I. 55 at 8-12; GX 16, 17); a .45 caliber cartridge found in a shoebox (D.I. 54 at 31; GX 6); and the remains of marijuana cigarettes ("blunts") in an ash tray (D.I. 54 at 70-71; GX 19); (b) From the closet, a bag more.

Summary: 435 F. Supp. James L. Holzman, J. Clayton Athey, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Boston, MA (Robert B. Lovett, Christopher F. Robertson, of counsel), for Defendants. Pursuant to a forum selection clause in the Merger Agreement, Defendants moved the Illinois court to dismiss the case for improper venue under Fed.R.Civ.P. Judge Zagel agreed with Defendants that the forum selection clause precluded Plaintiff from litigating his claims in Illinois, and ordered more.

Summary: 375 F. Supp. Thus, if the plaintiffs prevail, their recovery will "involve substantial expenditures from the public funds of the state. . . ." Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F.2d 226 (2nd Cir. Employees v. Missouri Public Health Department, supra at 285-286; Bowe v. Judson C. Burns, Inc., 137 F.2d 37 (3rd Cir. See Hayes v. Cape Henlopen School District, 341 F. Supp. 823 (D.Del.1972); O'Brien v. Galloway, 362 F. Supp. 901, 904 (D. Del.1973); Rochester v. Baganz, 365 F. Supp.

Summary: 450 F. Supp. OPINION STEEL, Senior District Judge: This action was instituted in this court on October 7, 1977, by Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail") seeking permanently to enjoin the City of Dover from enforcing a noise abatement ordinance against Conrail because of its railroad operations within the limits of the City of Dover. In the state action the City claims that the noise generated by railroad operations in switching or marshalling yards constitutes a public nuisance as does the more.

Summary: 135 F. Supp. Subsequently, limitation of liability proceedings were filed by the owner under 46 U.S.C.A. § 185 et seq., and questions arising from a motion to dismiss those proceedings were discussed in an opinion reported in D.C., 132 F. Supp. From the foregoing and adopting the method employed in Tumolo v. Reading Co., D.C., 52 F. Supp. The questions stem from the views expressed in Haidacker v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, D.C., 52 F. Supp. 589, 295 N.Y.S. 197; Tumolo v. Reading Co., D.C., more.

Summary: 399 F. Supp. On October 25, 1972 plaintiffs[1] filed this action against the Secretary of Transportation of the United States[2] and against the Secretary of the Department of Highways and Transportation of the State of Delaware[3] in order to contest[4] the proposed construction of a highway facility known as the "Newark Beltway." Count I of the complaint alleged that Secretary Volpe had approved the location of the proposed Beltway and would authorize the release of federal funds despite the more.